Mate choice and human stature: Homogamy as a unified framework for understanding mating preferences

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 2189-2203

  Courtiol, Alexandre ^a,b   Raymond, Michel ^b   Godelle, Bernard ^b   Ferdy, Jean Baptiste ^c  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; GLMM; Height; Morphological evolution; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ASSORTATIVE MATING; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HEIGHT; HOMINID; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MORPHOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ARTICLE; BODY HEIGHT; DECISION MAKING; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETICS; HUMAN; MALE; PHENOTYPE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BODY HEIGHT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHENOTYPE; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 77955235776     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00985.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Andersson M. Sexual selection. Monographs in Behavior and Ecology 1994, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
2. Balinski M, Laraki R. A theory of measuring, electing, and ranking. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104:8720-8725.
3. Beigel H G. Body height in mate selection. J. Soc. Psych. 1954, 39:257-268.
4. Bolker B M, Brooks M E, Clark C J, Geange S W, Poulsen J R, Stevens M H H, White J-S S. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24:127-135.
5. Buss D M. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 1989, 12:1-49.
6. Cameron C, Oskamp S, Sparks W. Courtship American style: newspaper ads. Family Coord. 1977, 26:27-30.
7. Courtiol A, Ferdy J-B, Godelle B, Raymond M, Claude J. Height and body mass Influence on human body outlines: a quantitative approach using an elliptic Fourier analysis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2010
8. Cox R M, Calsbeek R. Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. Am. Nat. 2009, 173:176-187.
9. Darwin C. The descent of man. Published in 1879 by John Murray, London 1879, 2nd edition, Penguin Classics, 2004, London
10. Ellis B J. The evolution of sexual attraction: evaluative mechanisms in women. The adapted mind 1995, 279-281. Barkow L C J HTooby J. eds, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY
11. Fink B, Neave N, Brewer G, Pawlowski B. Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS): further evidence for an adjustment in relation to own height. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2007, 43:2249-2257.
12. Fisher R A. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. T. R. Soc. Edinburgh 1918, 52:399-433.
13. Galton F. Natural inheritance 1889, London and New York, MacMillan and Co
14. Gillis J S, Avis W E. The male-taller norm in mate selection. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 1980, 6:396-401.
15. Gimelfarb A. Processes of pair formation leading to assortative mating in biological populations: dynamic interaction model. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1988a, 34:1-23.
16. Gimelfarb A. Processes of pair formation leading to assortative mating in biological populations: encounter-mating model. Am. Nat. 1988b, 131:865-884.
17. Graziano W, Brothen T, Berscheid E. Height and attraction: do men and women see eye-to-eye?. J. Pers. 1978, 46:128-145.
18. Hensley W E. Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence 1994, 29:469-474.
19. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 1999, 200:97-109.
20. Jackson L, Ervin K. Height stereotypes of women and men: the liabilities of shortness for both sexes. J. Soc. Psych. 1992, 132:433-445.
21. Kirkpatrick M, Rand A S, Ryan M J. Mate choice rules in animals. Anim. Behav. 2006, 71:1215-1225.
22. Knuth D E. The art of computer programming, vol. 3: sorting and searching, chapter Sorting by merging 1998, 158-168. 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
23. Koenker R. Parametric links for binary response. R News 2006, 6:32-34.
24. Koenker R, Yoon J. Parametric links for binary choice models: A Fisherian-Bayesian colloquy. J. Econometrics 2009, 152:120-130.
25. Kuhl F P, Giardina C R. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed outline. Comput. Graph. Image Process. 1982, 18:236-258.
26. Kurzban R, Weeden J. HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2005, 26:227-244.
27. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1981, 78:3721-3725.
28. Lindenfors P, Gittleman J L, Jones K E. Sexual size dimorphism in Mammals. Sex, size, and gender roles 2007, 16-26. Fairbairn D J, Blanckenhorn W U, Székely T. eds, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford
29. Lynch M, Walsh B. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits 1997, Sinauer Associates Inc., U.S
30. Lynn M, Shurgot B A. Responses to lonely hearts advertisements: effects of reported physical attractiveness, physique, and coloration. Pers. Soc. Psych. Bull. 1984, 10:349-357.
31. McCullagh P, Nelder J. Generalized linear models. 1989, Chapman and Hall, London
32. McManus I C, Mascie-Taylor C G N. Human assortative mating for height: non-linearity and heteroscedasticity. Hum. Biol. 1984, 56:617-623.
33. Mueller U, Mazur A. Evidence of unconstrained directional selection for male tallness. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2001, 50:302-311.
34. Nettle D. Height and reproductive success in a cohort of British men. Hum. Nat. 2002a, 13:473-491.
35. Nettle D. Women's height, reproductive success and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in modern humans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002b, 269:1919-1923.
36. Pawlowski B. Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:709-712.
37. Pawlowski B, Koziel S. The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2002, 23:139-149.
38. Pearson K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution: on the law of ancestral heredity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1897, 62:386-412.
39. Pearson K, Lee A. On the laws of inheritance in man: i. inheritance of physical characters. Biometrika Trust 1903, 2:357-462.
40. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. Nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package 2008, version 3.1-90
41. Price T, Schluter D, Heckman N E. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1993, 48:187-211.
42. Ryan M J, Rand A S, Tregenza T. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female Tungara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 2003, 57:2608-2618.
43. Salska I, Frederick D A, Pawlowski B, Reilly A H, Laird K T, Rudd N A. Conditional mate preferences: factors influencing preferences for height. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2008, 44:203-215.
44. Shepperd J A, Strathman A J. Attractiveness and height: the role of stature in dating preference, frequency of dating, and perceptions of attractiveness. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 1989, 15:617-627.
45. Sheskin D. The handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. 2007, Chapman and Hall, New York
46. Spuhler J N. Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Soc. Biol. 1982, 29:53-66.
47. Venables W N, Ripley B D. Modern applied statistics with S 2002, 4th edition, Springer, NY
48. Weeden J, Sabini J. Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: a review. Psychol. Bull. 2005, 131:635-653.